2001-2002 FACULTY SENATE
OF
California State University, Sacramento

Issue #20

Minutes
December 6, 2001

ROLL CALL [+ indicates alternate]

Present: Alexander, Amata, Barakatt, Barrick, Bauerly, Bayard, B. Buckley, L. Buckley, Cager, Curiel, Dillon, Elfenbaum, Ettinger, Evaggelopoulos, Evans, Green, Hall, Hreljac, Jaoudi, A. Jensen, Kent,   Kornweibel, Krabacher, Lascher, Lee, Leezer, Llamas-Green, +Mejorado, Meyer, Moore, Raingruber, Reihman, +Rodriguez, Roland, Takeuchi, Timmer, Utz, Uwazie, Whitus, Williams
Absent: Algert, Banta, Behrman, Brentwood, Driesbach, Dundon, Fitzgerald, Harvey, Hill, Kando, Kearly,  Kennedy, Klucas, Klyse, Lagunas-Carvacho, Lund, Moorehead, Peters, Roseberry-McKibbin, Sheppard, Smith, Valadez

SPECIAL REPORTS

"The CSU at the Beginning of the 21st Century" - 20 minutes [Bob Buckley]

News from Long Beach:  The State, the CSU and the Budget, the rewriting of the Master Plan, etc. - 20 minutes

The state’s budget crisis has resulted in our receiving a number of “messages” in the last few weeks from the Governor, the state legislature, and the Chancellor’s Office. These “messages” were questioned and discussed at last week’s annual Academic Conference sponsored by the statewide Academic Senate. Senator Dede Alpert, Faculty Trustee Harold Goldwhite and Chancellor Charles Reed spoke at the Friday’s closing session and spent considerable time answering questions from faculty.  There will be a panel presentation and discussion with senators - relating what we know and what we don’t know.  The “panelists” will be Bob Buckley, Cristy Jensen, Tom Krabacher and Louise Timmer.

Bob Buckley, Tom Krabacher and Louise Timmer presented this report.

 REGULAR AGENDA

FS 01-80/Flr. MINUTES 

Approval of the Minutes of November 15 (#19), 2001.

Carried.

*FS 01-81/CPC, Ex. Program Change Proposals - UNDERGRADUATE

The Faculty Senate recommends approval of program changes shown in Faculty Senate Agenda December 6, 2001 Attachment A and the Faculty Senate Agenda December 6, 2001 addendum.

Carried unanimously.

*FS 01-82/CPC, Ex. Program Change Proposals - GRADUATE

The Faculty Senate recommends approval of program changes shown in Faculty Senate Agenda December 6, 2001 Attachment A and the Faculty Senate Agenda December 6, 2001 addendum.

Carried unanimously.

*FS 01-83/Ex. UNIVERSITY ARTP DOCUMENT - POST TENURE REVIEW, EDITORIAL CHANGES TO

Background:  On May 10, 2001, FS 01-33 was approved by the Senate.  This legislation moved the responsibility of Post Tenure Review from the purview of the Faculty Policies Committee to the purview of the University ARTP Committee.  The "Periodic Review of Tenured Faculty - Guidelines" (Ref:  PM 85-06, AS 84-64, PM 88-08, last rev'd October 6, 1988) had been published as a separate document and is located in the University Manual.  This Motion (FS 01-83) moves and incorporates, in its entirety, the "Periodic Review of Tenured Faculty - Guidelines" into the University ARTP  document.  No substantive changes have been made, only the editorial changes indicated by the strikeouts and underlining.

The "Guidelines" have been inserted as Section 9.06 in the University ARTP document.  The current Section 9.06, entitled "Performance Review", has been renumbered as 9.07 and the current Section 9.07, entitled "Recommendation Process for Performance Review", has been renumbered as 9.08.

[strikethrough = deletion; underscore = addition]

9.06 Periodic Evaluation of Tenured Faculty

The Office of Faculty and Staff Affairs has responsibility for ensuring a department's conformity to University policy on the periodic evaluation of tenured faculty. Should a question of interpretation arise, it shall be brought to the University ARTP Faculty Affairs Committee, which retains jurisdiction over matters of policy and interpretation of policy, in the form of recommendations.

Individual members of the faculty would always be wise to examine appropriate portions of the University Manual ARTP document and more general policy documents (in this case including the Memorandum of Understanding) to understand the content and the extent of rights and obligations arising under these procedures set forth in this section.

  1. Purpose of Evaluation: To assist tenured faculty members to maintain or improve their teaching effectiveness.

  2. Frequency of Evaluation of Instructional Performance: Tenured faculty shall be evaluated at intervals of no greater than five years. An evaluation for purposes of retention, tenure or promotion shall fulfill the requirement.

  3. Each Academic Dean, as the appropriate administrator, is delegated the responsibility for monitoring the periodic review evaluation of tenured faculty process in his/her school college and for ensuring that the reviews evaluations conducted by the faculty committees and department chairs are in compliance with the procedures contained in this policy.

  4. Procedures:

  1. Each tenured faculty member subject to review periodic evaluation shall be evaluated by an elected peer review committee consisting of at least three tenured full-time department faculty of equal or greater higher rank. A department member scheduled for this evaluation may not serve on any committee to conduct a periodic review evaluation of tenured faculty committee during the year in which he/she is subject to review evaluation.

  2. The department chair shall not serve on nor meet with the peer review committee but shall will conduct an independent review evaluation and submit a separate evaluation report.

  3. The department shall develop a schedule of those faculty to be reviewed, in what specifying the order and in which year of evaluation of tenured faculty from year to year.

  4. State law and University policy guarantee to faculty the right of confidentiality. Consequently, substantive deliberations having to do with periodic review evaluation of post tenured faculty unit employees shall be are open only to committee members.

  5. The peer review committee and the department chair shall consider the following subject matter in conducting the reviews:

1)    Student evaluations taken since the last review evaluation of the faculty member's performance.

2)    Signed, written statements from students, and other signed, written statements concerning the faculty member's teaching effectiveness only if the faculty member has been provided an exact copy of each statement at least five days before the review evaluation.

3)    Material submitted by the faculty member being evaluated. This evidence may include, but not be limited to, the following:

Teaching materials 
Curriculum development 
Participation in professional meetings 
Professional lectures, seminars, workshops 
Consultant work 
Publications 
Leave activities

  1. The faculty member being evaluated shall have the right to meet with the peer review committee prior to the submission of the committee's report.

  2. The faculty member being evaluated shall have the right to meet with the department chair prior to submission of his/her evaluation.

  3. The committee shall prepare a written, signed evaluation report containing an assessment of the evidence. It shall provide a written copy of this report to the faculty member at least five days before the custodian places it in the Personnel Action file.

  4. The department chair shall prepare a written, signed evaluation report containing an assessment of the evidence. He/she shall provide a written copy of this report to the faculty member at least five days before the custodian places it in the Personnel Action file.

  5. The department chair and the chair of the peer review committee shall meet with the faculty member to discuss his/her strengths and weaknesses along with suggestions, if any, for his/her improvement.

  6. The evaluation statements shall be placed in the Personnel Action File. The faculty member shall have has the right to submit written rebuttals to them and these rebuttals shall also be placed in the Personnel Action File.

  7. The Academic Dean shall will not normally conduct an evaluation of tenured faculty under these procedures. However, a faculty member may appeal the evaluations of the faculty committee and/or the department chair by requesting, in writing, that the Dean conduct an independent review evaluation."

Carried unanimously.

*FS 01-84/CPC, Ex. JOINT DOCTORAL PROGRAM IN CLINICAL AUDIOLOGY--REQUEST TO NEGOTIATE 

The Faculty Senate recommends approval to negotiate a Joint Doctoral Program in Clinical Audiology between CSUS and the University of Nevada, Reno (Faculty Senate Agenda December 6, 2001 Attachment B).

Carried unanimously.

INFORMATION:

  1. Senate Home Page:  http:/www.csus.edu/acse

  2. Next Meeting:    February 14, 2002

Happy Holidays!!

The meeting was adjourned at 4:35 P.M.

Cheryl Johnson, Secretary

*Presidential approval requested.